This Playboy Article Deserves Scorn from the Left

Today's headlines are filled with outrage over the weekend shooting death of Kansas abortion doctor, George Tiller -- and righfully so, of course.

Many on the left are not only decrying the horrible incident, but are fairly calling on conservative Republican politicians and pro-life political groups to condemn this violent act; indeed, anyone who claims to be devoted to the rule of law must do precisely that.

Similarly, those dedicated to the empowerment of women must express outrage at a new article from Playboy titled, "So Right it's Wrong." The lead paragraph from the article itself best sums up what this ignoble piece targeting ten Republican women is all about:

Obama promised us the dream of post-partisanship -- a cuckoo land where party affiliation and factional animosity were forgotten. Turn on cable news or open any newspaper, however, and you'll quickly discover that the dream has yet to materialize. But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate fuck. We may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they're hot. Let the healing begin.

Just for fun? Maybe, but is this the sort of write-up something Huffington Post readers would ignore were it written not about conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin, but someone on the left?:

This highly f*ckable Filipina is a massively popular blogger who is known to dress up like a cheerleader on occasion (see video). She's also a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, "Do me!"

References to a woman's looks and ethnicity? God help the conservative blogger who would write such things about, say, a Democratic Congresswoman like a Stephanie Herseth Sandlin or a Loretta Sanchez.

Oh, there's a higher level of respect one might expect for a member of Congress than for a blogger, you might say? Don't worry... the clown who wrote this article went there, too, with the following lovely description of Republican Congresswoman, Michele Bachman:

Bachmann is a lusty congresswoman from the Twin Cities who's got some great twins of her own. She's rumored to have a Clinton-level libido, and with that batshit-crazy look in her eyes you just know she's a screamer.

The article went on to give her the lovely Hate F*ck rating of "Chemical castration has begun to look appealing."

Now, a parallel can't be accurately drawn between this rancid article and the shooting of a doctor, so please don't take this as though I'm equating the two acts; visiting physical violence down on someone obviously makes this weekend's incident more heinous by an immeasurably wide margin.

And heck, like many reading this post, I defend Playboy's right to publish drivel like this.

That said, the rest of us have the right to speak freely, as well, and we can rightfully condemn the precious, protected free speech of others when called for. So, is condemnation called for in this instance?

I lean right, politically, and I'm personally not easily offended. I don't even think this lame Playboy article, a cry for attention from a clearly fading brand -- and I do realize that to a degree I give them what they want by calling attention to it here -- represents an offense of the highest magnitude yet I think condemnation, particularly from the Left, is called for and here's why:

We all know that many good people on both sides of the aisle never consider entering the political arena because the brutal, personal nature of political attacks makes them think to themselves, 'why bother?' Well, it's not hard to imagine an article like this possibly having a chilling affect on some woman out there who might be thinking of running for office herself.

Aside from being simply embarrassed at how it makes their political side look, those on the Left should condemn this grotesque Playboy article on the basis that it might have just such an impact on a woman who could make a difference.

That is, if the Left ultimately stands for the empowerment of all women, regardless of party affiliation.

Chip Hanlon is the President of Delta Global Advisors, the founder of greenfaucet.com and the new CEO of Red County.

Comments

[qazwerty]

Calm down; that article wasn't even written with a modicum of seriousness.

[karinova]

What's with this assertion that this... article... was satire?
It isn't. Really.
Look up the word "satire."
It's just a really, really bad attempt at edgy humor.

The full content may bee seen here:
http://blogwonks.com/2009/06/05/playboys-conservative-women-hate-f***-fantasy/
(Replace the asterisks with... well, you know.)
----------

I have to say, it's supremely unfunny, but not quite as bad as I expected, ONLY in that they don't seem to be referring to some kind of "punishment s3x" (which I think we all know by a more common name). The "joke" seems to be "if these women get a rise out of you, then you should chop your junk off and repent!"
Unfortunate subtext: when faced with a contemptible-but-hot person, the natural thing to do is to have s3x with them anyway while vomiting in one's mouth a little bit, and then despise oneself later. Hilarious!

This could have MAYBE been funny. But not as handled by this hack.
The more you think about it, the worse it gets.

[Careysub]

Haven't seen the article (which has been taken down), but my reaction as a feminist guy is that this is an ugly topic for an attempt at humor. This was not a mocking of conservatives, but of conservative *women* using language that echoes sexual violence.

Crude nasty stuff. (Stupid and sophomoric too, but that isn't why it is bad.)

Perhaps it was intended to be so "over the top" that it would seem ridiculous? I'm sorry, no sale.

[karinova]

"Stupid and sophomoric" is spot on.

I like edgy humor, so just as a mental exercise, I tried to look past the unforgivable personal attacks.* (Misogyny, anyone? Enjoy, there's plenty!) But it's just not a funny premise, and even if it was, the delivery-- what with the excessive overuse of the f-word-- just ki|ls it. It's like he was desperate to shock.

*If he wanted to highlight reasons to politically despise these women, a few of their own quotes would have done the job. I can't stand them myself, but calling them "dumb," "rancid" and "cretins"? I'm not laughing.

[RevBookburn]

There is zero connection between the assassination of Dr. Tiller by a holy terrorist and the Playboy article. You may not like the way they went about it (and that's fine) but they are at least lampooning and ridiculing the current wave of teabaggers, obstructionists and overexposed propandists. Bachmann and Malkin deserve mockery. Thank you Playboy. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[RobinSeattle]

Aren't you missing the point?

The GOP is the party of former beauty queens or pageant contestant wannabes who have tried to brand the Democrats as a bunch of wimpy gay loving fairy boys. So the writer was merely throwing a little testosterone at Bachmann, et al to show just how Republican anti-feminist values affect the attitudes toward these egregious attention whores.

I'd do Malkin, but only if she agreed to wear a gag. Bachmann, no. Even horndogs have standards.

[ProperGanda]

Wow im surprised I never heard about this. Normally, I don't like to play the "if this happened to a dem/repub" game because it sounds like whining and chances are your not going to convince anyone to change their minds, this example is a little rediculous.

[DCCommuter]

Thanks Chuck. Good article. It is "humorous" but if men follow this, then pregnancies and children will result. Then the children get stuck with parents who hate each other.

[JakeMontero]

Chip, Its pretty simple. It's ok to trash Repug women. It's in the Dem bye bye laws.

[rtb61]

Typical mass media marketing stunt. When subscriptions are dropping and a 'er' journalist is losing public interest, fire off with an inflammatory article, draw a lot of for and against viewers, apologise and the of course allow time to rinse memories so that you can repeat. This article is a satirical copy of so called conservative (who conserves nothing) pundits (expert 'nah' greedy mass media hound willing to say or write anything that will earn them more money). Still not appropriate but not much different from publicly supporting torture, or telling citizen to get out of the country if they don't support the view being promoted, calling people traitors if they disagree with government (only ring wing governments of course), using a full range of racial, political and 'social' slurs in order to alienate and isolate selected groups of non pundit supporters who threaten the income of those pundits 'er' shameless for profit mass media liars.

[gparrablessing]

Correction: I just realized Mr. Hanlon "leans Right." In which case, he really never has talked to a woman before. Or at least, he hasn't ever listened...

And a question: why in the world did Playboy capitulate? A shame, because that magazine has done more for the cause of free expression and sexual liberation than all liberal organizations put together...

[JimmyTee]

"Many on the left are not only decrying the horrible incident, but are fairly calling on conservative Republican politicians and pro-life political groups to condemn this violent act; indeed, anyone who claims to be devoted to the rule of law must do precisely that."

They have. When will anti-war and Muslim groups condemn the murder of that Army recruiter?

[valkyrie607]

False equivalency much?

[Jason Osborne]

They already have - dingus...it's the first thing that happened.

[RustyGranite]

Yeah, where has this weirdo been?

[seatea1967]

Expecting better from Playboy seems like an odd windmill at which to tilt.

[LMPE]

I've never read Playboy and have no plans to.

[doug108]

No one reads Playboy.

[tfoley]

playboy contains articles?

[pmorlan]

Chip, I agree with you and I'm very much a liberal. Playboy has been objectifying women for years. To paraphrase another feminist - Rightwing men want the right to secretly ogle magazines like Playboy and Leftwing men brag about viewing them because they think it somehow proves that they are sexually sophisticated. LOL

For those of us who point out the fact that the magazines objectify women and foster inequality we are usually dismissed as prudes (like BlackJAC implied with his/her $20 bet). People don't like being reminded that what they are doing may in fact be hurting others so it's easier for them to pretend that our objections are about sex and not about the real issue of objectification.

[BlackJAC]

I counter with the following:
* an old Sinbad comedy routine, in which he discusses how women hypocritically punish men for admiring attractive women while they get to admire attractive men with impunity
* the pilot episode of JUST SHOOT ME, in which Elliott calls out Maya on her own hypocritical condemnation of glamour photography while simultaneously praising the idealized nude male form depicted in Michelangelo's "David"
* an old Diet Coke commercial, in which several women in an office tower ogle a shirtless hunk at the neighboring construction site
* a For Eyes commercial, in which an old woman puts on a pair of glasses and they make her equally old and dumpy husband look like a soap opera hunk

When they make a women-oriented romantic comedy in which the heroine finds true love with the paunchy schlub because he's got a great personality rather than the BAYWATCH-class hunk (HITCH doesn't count because it was male-oriented), then you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then, you're just as guilty of superficial lust as the rest of us.

[RustyGranite]

Here here.

[notyouropinion]

Wow, three examples and one of them from about eight years ago and the other five. Turn on the TV and get modern. Just turn on the TV during a sporting event.. Also show me one schlub woman in the movies under the age of 32, while women get to take in the great looks of Seth Rogan, Jonas Hill, and whoever that guy is from Forgetting Sarah Marshall the modern day matinee idols.

[pmorlan]

LOL..one commenter calls me a puritan and the other one says I'm guilty of superficial lust. Gee BlackJac...do you really think just because someone wrote those commercials and story lines about women that it automatically makes them true? I guess you must think that women enjoy rape too because you saw a photo shoot where she was smiling while being raped. LOL Your counter argument is weak.

[gparrablessing]

Pmorlan, are you a woman? And if so, do you realize you are not a feminist, but in fact a puritan? The insertion of puritan attitudes about sex into the feminist discourse is an almost exclusively American phenomenon. France, which in many ways is farther along in the cause of women's rights than the U.S., has no compunction about allowing women the equal right to have just as many sexual partners as men, nor the right to objectify sex and men. Besides, what in the world is wrong with objectification? Without it, there would be no art. Interestingly, recent studies have come out noting that while French women are the most promiscuous in the world, approaching if not surpassing men in the number of sexual partners, French people also eat best, sleep most, and, by all indications, enjoy life more. But here in America, still hostage to the religious zealotry of puritanism, it is no coincidence that it is one of the most religious countries on Earth, and people like you harbor the intense fear that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time...

[doug108]

Exactly. People objectify everything. Where would the NFL or MLB be without the objectification of male athletes? It's a ridiculous, self congratulatory argument.

[AnonymousDissenter]

I am a woman who used to do that for a living, I am leftist, and you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't about art. Do some research into it (in other words, care), and you'll see what happens to women in this work. It's a humanitarian crisis that, if it weren't about guys getting off, would be a lot more important to the left.

And what does whether someone likes their se-xuality have to do with it? It's not about that. It's about money and power and poverty and class. There's nothing s-exy about that, dude. In fact, it takes a long time to get over that so that you CAN like actual real s--ex again, but I don't expect you to have any idea what that's like, since you'll never have to do it.

[RustyGranite]

Yup!

[pmorlan]

LOL Yup, just like I said, when someone mentions that porn objectifies women they are usually accused of hating sex and being prudes. LOL Thanks for providing proof to illustrate my point. LOL By the way I'm agnostic - not a religious bone in my body. LOL I'm very much a feminist and I love sex so your puritan label is a non-starter. If you think porn is art than maybe you need to take an art appreciation class. There is nothing wrong with nudity or erotica but there are far too many real rapes out in the world for me to accept that magazines that help glorify rape should be considered anything but detrimental to women. But maybe you think getting your jolly's is more important than demanding that women stop being objectified and portrayed as nothing but sex toys for men to be used, abused and discarded for newer models when the men tire of them.

[doug108]

The women who pose for Playboy do it of their own free will, so far as I know. All men objectify women and all women objectify men. We all see each other as sexual objects, at one time or another.

[Simone]

Gosh, Chip, you just found out Playboy is disgusting? Glad that light bulb finally went on.

[BlackJAC]

Remove the naked women and PLAYBOY is essentially ESQUIRE.

[fleetw1978]

Correction, naked air brushed women. They look so fake and airbrushed, they dont even look real anymore. Pretty pathetic.